Edward Garnier: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) about the bodies he listed, will the Minister say when the Secretary of State will reply to my letter dated 21 December setting out concerns in my constituency about the proposal to build a new town of up to 50,000 inhabitants on the Co-operative Society's almost-5,000 acre farming estate in the Harborough district? May I tell the Minister that that massive development, which might well come before the bodies my hon. Friend referred to—

Iain Wright: We announced the green homes service on 19 November last year. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing said in an earlier answer, the green homes service will offer every householder who gets an energy performance certificate of an F or G rating for their home discounted or free help with energy efficient measures. That help will come from a range of grants from both Government and industry under the energy efficient commitment.

Iain Wright: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We anticipate that over the next three years 5 million more homes will benefit from discounted or free loft and cavity-wall insulation, and another 3 million homes from discounted or free low-energy light bulbs and energy efficient appliances. The next phase of the energy efficient commitment, running from 2008 to 2011, is expected to cut carbon emissions by 1.1 million tonnes and will save consumers about £10 billion in energy savings. That is good for home owners, and it is good for the environment.

Paul Burstow: Earlier in question time my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) raised the issue of housing subsidy. Will the ministerial team give serious consideration to how they will explain to my constituents who are council tenants that, on average, every one of those council tenant households is paying £1,473 a year in negative subsidy back to the Government? How can it be fair for some of the poorest in our society to contribute in that way to other poor people in other parts of the country?

Eric Pickles: I am sure that the Secretary of State will have been saddened by the evidence presented at last week's inquest into the death of baby Rhianna Hardie, who was scalded in a tragic accident caused by a faulty thermostat. The coroner noted that the Health and Safety Executive thought that a similar fatality in 2002 sufficiently serious to bring it to the attention of the predecessor Department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. However, the Department did not pass on that warning to local authorities. Has the Secretary of State been able to ascertain why the ODPM did not pass that information on to local authorities?

Laurence Robertson: The Government will be aware of the sustained rainfall experienced by many parts of the country, including my own, which was devastated by floods last year. Although the situation is not that bad yet, more rain is predicted. People's homes are being flooded, as are roads and fields. Given that fact, is it not rather insensitive for the regional assembly to submit its draft regional spatial strategy to the Government suggesting that thousands of extra houses should be built in my constituency? People need houses, but do they want them where they cannot get insurance, where they will flood or where they will cause other people's property to flood. The regional spatial strategy document needs to be thrown straight back at the assembly and rejected outright.

Ben Bradshaw: The regulatory bodies such as the GMC, the GOC and possibly others that come under the independent adjudicator's remit will pay the fees, based on the workload of the independent adjudicator in any one year. Individual doctors now pay a levy or a membership fee to the GMC. They will continue to do so, and out of the funds that that raises, the GMC—or the GOC, or other appropriate body—will pay a fee that will be set after consultation with everybody, including Members of Parliament, and approval by the Secretary of State in laid regulations.
	We are doing some independent research with the GMC into its current costs. It is rather difficult to disaggregate the cost of the adjudication process from the overall costs that the GMC incurs, but our estimate is about £11.5 million a year. That is the figure that we are working on. That is the current cost, which is met by medical doctors and others who are members of those organisations and pay their annual subscription to those organisations.
	The new clause about fees must be authorised by a Ways and Means resolution. The House authorities, I understand, reached this conclusion because the new office of the health professions adjudicator will be for the benefit of the general public, rather than just for the benefit of the professions regulated by the GMC and the GOC. In addition, the fees charged by the OHPA will cover all of the body's costs, rather than costs incurred before a day to be specified in regulations or costs incurred for a purpose specified in regulations. That is the difference between the fee-charging powers of the Healthcare Commission and the future care quality commission. In other words, the fees will be calculated by reference to the total expenditure of the OHPA, rather then to the individual service that it is providing to an individual organisation.
	It has always been our intention that the regulatory bodies in receipt of OHPA's adjudication services should pay for the adjudication of their cases. As I said, at present the costs are borne by the health care professional regulators, and we see no reason why that should change. The fee will be charged on an annual basis rather than on a case-by-case basis. As I also said, regulations will be made by the Secretary of State, setting out the process through which the level of the fee is to be determined. I am confident that the funding arrangements set out in the new clause are fair and appropriate.

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend will well remember when the former Minister for Sport, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), came back from Sydney and said, quoting someone he had met out there:
	"'Do not underestimate the budget. If you have to go higher, it will be seen as a failure so make sure your calculations are realistic.'"——[ Official Report, 21 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1505.]
	From this afternoon's announcements, what on earth makes anyone in the Chamber, other than those on the Labour Front Bench and possibly some Back Benchers, believe that the new figures are realistic? How can we sell them to our constituents, who are suffering from the cuts in grass-roots sports and in our local theatres—the Northcote theatre in Exeter and others throughout the country? Why are the new figures any more realistic? What is to prevent the Minister from asking for more money again in a few months? Surely it is the duty of every Member of the House to protect those causes, which are already suffering so badly.

Don Foster: In my contribution, which I hope to continue for a brief period, I shall make some proposals as to how we find additional money. I will be particularly interested to hear the contributions from the SNP and the Welsh nationalists in which they explain their position. They can bleat, but it seems to me that there are two choices. People can either sit there and just whinge, and say, "We can't do anything about it," or they can make constructive positive proposals. That is what I seek to do.
	We know that there have been problems with the budget. We were originally told that it would be £2.375 billion. In 2006 that figure rose to £3.3 billion, and in early 2007 it rose to £5.1 billion. We are now looking at a figure of £9.3 billion. Before the Minister for the Olympics jumps to her feet, I know that putting it like that is not fair because I have not compared like with like; nevertheless, she will accept that the figures have increased substantially. That is why we are being asked whether we are prepared to authorise a further take from lottery good causes to fill that black hole in the budget.
	We want the Olympic games and the Paralympics to succeed, which also means ensuring that they deliver a legacy. As we heard from the hon. Member for South-West Surrey, many people believe that a further cut will damage the very bodies that will deliver that legacy. Dame Liz Forgan, chairman of the Heritage Lottery Fund, says:
	"this further cut will impact on our ability to invest in the nation's heritage at exactly the time it is being showcased to the world."
	Robin Simpson, chief executive of the Voluntary Arts Network, warned:
	"The further diversion of lottery funds threatens to erode this support and...the development and survival of many groups."
	As we have already heard, the Central Council for Physical Recreation has expressed real concerns that the
	"diversion of funding is likely to result in reduced participation".
	There is a problem for those of us making a decision today. Do we simply say, "No, we're not allowing that to go ahead because of all of the potential problems," or do we come up with constructive proposals to find ways of getting additional money to the lottery good causes that will make up for the cut, to help them to deliver that legacy? That is why we have been in discussion with the Secretary of State, as has the hon. Member for South-West Surrey, and we recognise that others have as well. CCPR has put forward its suggestions in discussions with the Government, including the enhancement of the excellent community amateur sports club scheme through the application of gift aid to junior club subscriptions and the reduction of licensing fees. It has also proposed the use of some of the proceeds from dormant bank accounts to help in sports activities. I hope that those proposals will be considered carefully.
	We have made some detailed suggestions. First, we have said clearly that we want a cap on that £750 million. There should be no more take from the lottery as a result of the Olympic lottery games. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he accepts that, and we are grateful for that assurance. Secondly, we proposed that the Government carefully consider the proposal to change taxation on the national lottery to gross profit tax. We know that they were initially very sceptical about that, but I am delighted that the Treasury has now become agnostic about it, and we seem to be getting some support for the idea from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. According to independent experts from PricewaterhouseCoopers, if such a change were to go ahead, something like £400 million would go back to lottery good causes by 2019, and a lot of that money would be invested before the 2012 games. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has said that he will carry out a review, but I hope that we will have an absolute assurance in the winding-up speech that such a move will be implemented as quickly as possible if the review says that it would be positive for the Exchequer, because of the extra money for the taxpayer, and for lottery good causes. Thirdly, we asked the Secretary of State to examine what he called the grey areas of lottery-style games. Many people who play the national lottery know that a proportion goes towards supporting good causes. However, in recent years gambling operators have introduced lottery-style betting games, which, they admit, are intended to compete with the national lottery. They look like national lottery games, but they are run solely for commercial gain and they reduce the number of national lottery players. Independent experts have shown that if we can eliminate those games so that players switch back to the national lottery, it would mean, on a conservative estimate, an extra £44 million a year—more than £500 million by 2019—for good causes.
	Fourthly, we asked for clarification of a memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State and the Mayor of London. The House is well aware that the sale of land and buildings will follow the Olympics and Paralympics. We are all interested in knowing how much money that will generate. There has been much debate today, but the speculation is no different from that of many months ago. I would not like to judge which of the many experts is right about the eventual figure, but if there is more information at any stage, we would like to see it. However, the memorandum of understanding made clear the order in which money would be repaid to the lottery good causes, the LDA and the Mayor of London. I should like to have an assurance, which I have not yet received, that the memorandum of understanding is binding, and that no attempt will be made to try to change the way and the order in which money is paid out.
	Let me give one example to which the Secretary of State might respond. The memorandum of understanding makes no reference to funding the maintenance of the Olympic park after the 2012 games. Will he assure us that there will be no sudden take from the land sale money that duly arises?
	We wanted to persuade the Secretary of State to scrap the Olympic lottery distribution body. We would save £2 million by scrapping a body that simply takes money and hands it back to the Olympics. We know where the money needs to go—but the Secretary of State said that he was not prepared to budge on that small issue.
	However, we have received assurances on the four other key issues, together with assurances about there being no further take, and the provision of more detailed budgetary information, and we are delighted. We now have a sensible package of measures on which to move forward. If we add the possibility of additional money through the third Camelot licence, leading to between £600 million and £1 billion extra for good causes, and the modest but none the less welcome increase in grant in aid to various bodies, we now have a package that assures us that much of the money taken from good causes will go back to them. Indeed, if all our proposals are accepted, in due course they will get more than was taken from them, and more than £400 million will be returned before the 2012 games. That is a good outcome of the discussions between us and the Secretary of State. On that basis, we are prepared to support the Government.

Adam Price: I have an alternative funding proposal. Why not slap a windfall tax on the bonuses about to be sent out next week by the likes of JP Morgan and City group? If there is to be an extra burden, should it not fall on the richest citizens in one of the richest cities in the world rather than on the weak, the disadvantaged and the poor?

Andy Burnham: I seem to remember that the former Prime Minister came back to the House on more than occasion—after the Council in June and again in December, once the decision was made. I accept that the latter occasion was after the event, but the debate on these matters after the June Council was very live and the House had an opportunity to influence events. I repeat that there was a vote on Second Reading, and hon. Members will have other chances in the votes to be held this evening to express their views as to whether they believe the agreement represents a good deal for Britain. I am not going to assert that it is, as all hon. Members must arrive at their own judgment. If they decide to reject a deal that was negotiated in good faith, however, they must bear in mind the damage that might be done to Britain's interests in Europe.

Stewart Hosie: I apologise, Mrs. Heal. The Minister said that the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) set out a perfectly reasonable position, but that the Government could not do as he suggested because the EU sought compromise. I understand that it seeks compromise, and I agree with much of what the Minister said about maintaining the rebate in respect of the EU 15 and changing it only in respect of the accession states, with no change to the basis of agricultural funding. However, why does that preclude us from receiving proper information on all the issues, which concern every hon. Member in the House, before ratification is required next January?

Andy Burnham: That is absolutely the point, and the nature of the complex negotiations that were finalised in 2005. The changes that I am outlining show how we have had to be sensitive to the position of other countries, such as Netherlands which, even after the own resources decision, is still the largest net contributor in percentage terms to the budget per capita. It is important that we keep working to make sure that the budget is as fair as possible. It leaves the UK a mid-ranking net contributor.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman makes a very big statement for somebody who represents a party that claims to wish to remain a member of the European Union. He says that it is a fraudulent and corrupt organisation. I do not agree. In its latest report the European Anti-Fraud Office estimates fraud levels of 0.06 per cent. in agricultural spending, 0.41 per cent. in structural fund spending and 0.03 per cent. in pre-accession spending. That is not to say that there should be any complacency on these matters, or that the European Court of Auditors has not shone a light on aspects that could be much better. There is an argument about accounting standards and ensuring that they are very strong. It is quite another thing to say that the European Commission or the European Union—I do not recall which the hon. Gentleman said—is a fraudulent and corrupt organisation. That is a very large statement with which I do not agree, and with which I do not believe his party agrees.
	The decision retains the correction mechanism in favour of the UK, the abatement, along with the reduced financing of the correction benefiting Germany, Austria, Sweden and Netherlands. After a phasing-in period between 2009 and 2011, the UK will participate fully in the financing of the costs of enlargement by disapplying all non-agricultural expenditure—money in support of economic development—in the new member states from the abatement. Finally, the additional UK contribution resulting from the reduction in allocated expenditure is limited to €10.5 billion, in 2004 prices, over the period from 2007 to 2013.
	In summary, the UK's abatement remains intact on all agricultural spending. On all expenditure in the EU 15 it is preserved and will rise in value. Along with the fact that the ceilings on budget expenditure are retained, and that the budget overall will fall to less than 1 per cent. of EU GNI during this budget period, we argue that that makes it a good deal for the taxpayer. At the same time we will, along with other net contributors to the EC budget, pay our fair share of the costs of enlargement. We support enlargement, which we know will be good for Britain, creating new trading opportunities and new jobs.
	I believe that I have answered in full the interventions made in the course of this stand part debate. We have an obligation to honour our commitments made to our European partners. By adopting the own resources decision this evening, we will take Britain's relationship in Europe to a new level that will open up new opportunities for British business.

Austin Mitchell: I have a dreadful feeling that this discussion, which should be about value for money and whether we are paying over the odds to belong to the European Union, is degenerating into the old pro or anti-Europe argument, with those who are enthusiastic about Europe saying, "Pay up—give 'em the money, Barney!", while those who are more critical and sceptical, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson), say that this is a bad deal. And it is a bad deal.
	The meat of the discussion is in clause 1. That is the meat of the Bill, unless we are going to fight over the short title, which would seem a rather pointless exercise. It is important to recognise that the meat of this debate on the calculation of the European correction is the generosity shown towards Europe by our previous Prime Minister, who seems to have ended his period in office with extraordinarily generous impulses towards Europe, one of which was detailed in the newspapers this morning: a commitment to provide 60 per cent. of energy generation through renewables in accord with European totals. It is a total that we cannot reach, and it is going to be incredibly expensive even to move towards reaching it, but he committed himself to it.
	That is irrelevant to this Bill, as I am sure that you are about to tell me, Mrs. Heal, but what is relevant is his generosity over the rebate. Until that point, we had been told that it was inviolate and sacred, and that it would be there for ever to recognise Britain's unique situation and contribution, but suddenly it was breached. The interesting question for me is what made our previous Prime Minister so generous on his long march to the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire, fighting against the Socialist candidates in the municipal elections. Was that breach agreed by the Cabinet before the Prime Minister negotiated it? Did the Cabinet authorise the Prime Minister to make that concession? Was it told about it later, or did authorise it before the negotiations started? We need to know that, and we also need to know what the cost will be.
	I was delighted to hear the Chief Secretary say that the figures will be published. I hope that they will be published annually, because the British people need to know what they are contributing towards Europe and what this institution is costing them. We are told that the money is to pay for enlargement. We already pay over the odds to belong to the club in the first place. There have been certain disagreements about the scale of the figures, but those I have had calculated for me show that we are now paying £10 billion a year gross—not euros—and £4 billion a year net. Money comes back to us for projects approved and supported by the EU that we would not necessarily want in the first place, but we do get a return. By 2013, under clause 1, we will be paying £20 billion a year gross under clause 1, and £6 billion a year net.
	We are talking about billions here, and an increased contribution of up to £3 billion chucked in just like that. We are fighting the police for a measly £30 million, but we are giving away, on this generous impulse of our previous Prime Minister, up to £3 billion by 2013. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary told us that that was for enlargement, and part of it is, but it is also for a lot of other purposes decided by the European Community and not by us. It is only partially for enlargement in any case. If we accept this breach in the rebate, to which we agreed to sustain the enlargement of the European Community that we want—wider, not deeper—are we preparing to say, when the enlargement includes Turkey, that we must agree to another reduction and carving of the rebate? I do not want to say that, and we should not be committed to saying it.
	It is a question of money. I think that my figures are accurate, but I hope that the figures will be published annually so that people know what the Bill means to this country, and so that they know how much they as taxpayers are paying to sustain membership of this institution. It is not our only contribution, of course; we are paying £1.8 billion for other programmes. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development calculates that we pay £15 billion to belong to the common agricultural policy—a policy that at every election every party has said will be fundamentally reformed, but it never has been. That policy was to be reformed fundamentally as a condition of our agreeing to the reduction of the rebate, but it cannot be reformed until 2013 in any case, when I have no doubt it will be sustained.
	Those are the sorts of contributions we make, and if we add the cost of regulations, we find that membership of this institution costs us about £40 billion to £50 billion a year. I would like those calculations to be made public every year so that we know what is going on, and what we are paying. I would also like them to be calculated in terms of the effect on GDP. The contribution is going to be about 0.5 per cent. of GDP. We are struggling as a party to get an increase in GDP up from a measly 2.5 per cent. This year it will be substantially lower than 2 per cent. but we are accepting an increase in the 0.5 per cent. of GDP contribution we pay to belong to the EU. We need to know the figures because any loss to GDP is cumulative; it goes up all the time. The payment is also a payment across the exchanges. I know that the previous Prime Minister is making a magnificent effort to close the balance of payments through his earnings in the United States, but that will not be enough to deal with the fact that the deficit is now running at about 5 per cent. of GDP. We are adding to it through this increase in the contributions set out in the Bill.
	The question we face tonight is one of whether the increase is worth the money. Should we support this increase in contributions to the EU? The new clause proposed by the Conservatives, which we shall discuss later, is worthy and well worth accepting. At this stage, I can say only that we are not getting value for money, and that the contribution is not worth making. We are paying over the odds to belong to a club that is doing serious damage to us anyway, and we should not agree to this contribution. I certainly cannot vote for it.

John Redwood: I shall keep my remarks brief, because once again the Government are not allowing us proper time to deal with the matters before us—clause 1 and the very important new clause 1, which we hope will be moved shortly. However, I cannot let the Chief Secretary get away with the disgraceful arguments that he has produced this evening.
	The Chief Secretary first suggested that Mrs. Thatcher used to negotiate and reach compromises, and that that was entirely comparable to the negotiation, sell-out and giveaway that he has again announced to the House. Let us compare the two negotiations. Mrs. Thatcher went to a Community in which the other 11 countries had no interest in letting us keep more of our money. Any one of them could have vetoed her proposal that we should have a rebate. She managed to talk them round from 11-one down to 12-nil in favour, because she had to win by a unanimous vote.
	All that the current Government had to do when they went to Brussels was say, "We have a veto and we are not going to give away what Margaret Thatcher so wisely and brilliantly won for the United Kingdom," but they could not even do that. They gave in under pressure and said, "Oh deary me, no, it would be quite wrong of us to use our veto. We'd love to shell out €10.5 billion over the first period and much more over subsequent periods, because we now realise that we shouldn't use the veto and we're here to give in." The Opposition are delighted that the Chief Secretary gave way so much in this debate, but we are unhappy that Mr. Blair and others gave way so much when they completed mishandled the negotiations.
	Labour colleagues of the Chief Secretary are present who believe that the sterling equivalent of that €10.5 billion would be much better spent on public services, which they greatly revere. There are also those on the Conservative Benches, such as me, who believe that, in the light of all the money wasted in public services, that €10.5 billion should be given back to British taxpayers, who have paid all too dearly for the Government's inefficiency and their bad negotiations in Europe.
	The Chief Secretary tells us that we should regard the deal as a negotiating triumph, because although the Government gave away the veto that had been so brilliantly negotiated by a predecessor Prime Minister, they achieved a smaller rate of increase in the budget than the Chief Secretary apparently thinks we achieved 13 years ago. It may be that the Government achieved a smaller rate of increase, but what matters is that the budget increased so much in the early Labour years, after the end of the Tory years, that any increase would be unacceptable. The Chief Secretary cannot get away from the fact that the budget that he is recommending is massively higher than that which was recommended by Mr. Major. For that reason alone I cannot accept it, because it is too big a burden on British taxpayers.
	We then heard the myth, which the Government put about, that the proposal is essential for those countries in eastern Europe, which would otherwise be deprived. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) pointed out, however, enlargement was agreed without the new variant. If we had dug in and used our veto, enlargement would still have happened, but we would not have had to make a disproportionately large contribution to that increased spending in the territories entering through enlargement. Some of the other rich countries of western Europe should also have continued to make a bigger contribution relative to ours, for the reasons that my hon. Friends have already set out.

John Hayes: I hope that right hon. Friend will not ignore the Chief Secretary's other two specious arguments. The first was that the deal could have been worse if the Commission had had its way—a suggestion that represents the last resort of the scoundrel. The other was that any objection to what has been negotiated is somehow improper and that the House should not scrutinise the deal that was done. That is the Vichy argument, which has been used by malevolent or misguided Ministers for years in selling this country short.

Andy Burnham: I have referred to these figures before in the debate. The net contribution is published in the pre-Budget report and again in the Budget, and that is a forecast of payments that the country will make. The figures have been set out quite clearly. I do not have the pre-Budget report to hand, but from memory I think that the net contributions over the course of the spending review that we are about to enter are about £5.5 billion, and will stay at roughly that level over the spending period.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson), who has also left the Chamber, made the point that we had done reasonably well but not well enough. I accept much of what he said. It is his right as a Member of the House to believe that this is not a good enough deal for this country. That is his prerogative. I would say, however, that if we consider all the elements of the deal, we see that it does the job.
	What are those elements? They include a rebate that will rise rather than fall during this financial perspective. That sounds pretty good to me. That is within the context of an overall budget that is significantly lower than was originally proposed. The amount spent on the common agricultural policy over the period will fall in value from €55 billion to €51 billion in 2004 prices. The British and French net contributions will come into rough parity in that period, which is an important step. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West acknowledged, the net contributions that France will make will increase at a significantly faster rate in this financial perspective than they have done previously. Furthermore, we have secured a budget review, which the commissioner has said will open up a consideration in which there will be "no taboos". Everything will be up for consideration, and we shall be able to secure further progress as part of that review.
	The allegation from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was that we had meekly accepted everything that was said and not pressed Britain's interests. As I have just illustrated, however, Britain has demonstrably secured changes that are in our national interest. All the points that I have just made demonstrate that. It is wrong to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to do, that we have simply accepted whatever was being put forward by Brussels or by other member states.

Philip Hammond: I was not here then and nor was the hon. Gentleman. The answer is no, I will not cast my mind back; I will press on and make some progress instead.
	The outcome of the review is subject to individual veto by member states. Without something for us to offer our partners in the process of that review, Ministers, however well intentioned—I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt on that, as I shall assume that they go into such negotiations well intentioned, if naïve—will not achieve the UK's objectives.

Vincent Cable: I am rather tempted by the new clause. As I said in the clause stand part debate, there was a major failure in the negotiations to establish a link between the rebate and agricultural policy. It seems in principle, unless the Minister can persuade us to the contrary, that the new clause provides a mechanism for retrieving the situation.
	Let us look carefully at what the Prime Minister said about the review in his statement to the House in December last year, when he brought back the agreement. He clearly thought that he had extracted a major concession in return for the negotiations on the rebate. He said:
	"Alongside this agreement on... the modernisation of eastern Europe, we also agreed on a fundamental review of all aspects of the EU budget, including the common agricultural policy... with the recommendation that it begin in 2008."
	The two subsequent sentences are crucial. The Prime Minister said:
	"As the language in the European Council conclusions makes... clear, it is then possible for changes to be made to this budget structure in the course of this financing period."
	Of course it is possible, but why should the Governments who resist reform of the common agricultural policy agree? What possible incentive is there for them to do so? The French Government will almost certainly refuse to renegotiate. What possible leverage do the British Government have in carrying through the Barroso recommendations?
	The following sentence is even more substantial. The Prime Minister continued:
	"This will also allow us to take account of any changes agreed in the World Trade Organisation round".—[ Official Report, 19 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 1564.]
	That is terribly important, because we keep being reminded—rightly—that if the negotiations fail, there will be disastrous consequences for the world economy, for Europe and for the United Kingdom.
	During the last few weeks, Mr. Mandelson has been ominously quiet. There is a real and growing worry that the negotiations may fail, primarily because of difficulties in the American Congress but also because of the intransigence of agricultural interests in Europe. In the next few months, we may well be faced with disastrous circumstances in which our negotiations fail for the first time since the second world war, opening a Pandora's box of protectionism. The British Government should be, and according to much of its rhetoric will be—and we hope it will be—in the vanguard of efforts to prevent that from happening. However, what negotiating clout do they have in making other EU members come to an agreement with the Americans at the World Trade Organisation? There is no leverage; there is no negotiating position if it has already been conceded.

Vincent Cable: That is a helpful intervention. I do not know how significant those commissioner's comments are, but they seem to be genuinely worrying.
	In his initial remarks, the Minister tried to alarm us—perhaps rightly, as we need to understand the Government position better—about the consequences of this legislation not being ratified on time. It is a nuclear weapon in many respects, but we need to understand how the nuclear bomb actually works in these circumstances: what would be the practical consequences of detonating it?
	It is my understanding that on the financial front we would revert to the earlier own resources formula, which in purely financial terms would be better for the UK, so it is clearly not a deterrent in that sense. There is also the mechanics of how payments are made, and whether failure to ratify on time would affect the normal running of payments through the EU. Again, I confess ignorance on that: I do not know at what point a failure to achieve legislative closure affects the day-to-day payments. There is a section in the explanatory notes that I am afraid I do not understand, but the Minister might be able to explain it. It states:
	"The additional UK contribution resulting from the reduction in allocated expenditure is limited to €10.5bn in 2004 prices over the period 2007 to 2013."
	The implication is that the changes are already in operation and that they will be retrospectively validated by this legislation, so there is nothing to stop these payments occurring now. There is also an implication that the deterrent—the nuclear bomb—is, in the end, largely an issue of face or prestige: the British Government cannot get their own legislature to agree a piece of legislation, which is very embarrassing. But is it more than embarrassment? That is the question that we have to answer.
	If the Government can explain that holding up this legislation in order to achieve these necessary improvements will do serious damage to the functioning of the EU and Britain's role within it, I would be hesitant to support the new clause, but if all that is at stake is a little embarrassment at the beginning of 2009—which might, indeed, have the effect of stiffening the Government's spine in what then might be difficult negotiations about the review—I cannot see the harm. As somebody who is a pro-European, I want the Government to explain convincingly to me why I should not support the new clause.

Peter Lilley: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I return to the subject of the own resources of the European community with some nostalgia, as it was the subject on which I made by maiden speech some years ago, on which I had my maiden rebellion against my Government, and on which I made my maiden criticism of the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, nearly bringing my career to a premature end. She was seduced—or so it seemed to me—by the argument that in return for a promise from the European Union to be more moderate in its future spending, she should concede an increase in the own resources of the European Community. I asked her at Prime Minister's questions whether she would follow that logic and reward a drunkard who had signed the pledge by giving him a bottle of whisky. She was not best amused, and I was told my career would not proceed any further. I was wrong, of course, as Mrs. Thatcher was in the process of securing for Britain the rebate that has enabled us to save billions of pounds of contribution to the EU, whereas the present Government are doing the reverse.
	I mention this because I think it shows that, having been critical of my own Government, I have a reasonable licence to be critical of this Government on this issue. My position in both cases is as someone who does not want to see a waste of public expenditure through an increase in spending that will not be properly monitored or controlled, and will not be in the interests of the taxpayer. I fear that what we are being asked to do today will result in that. That is why I welcome the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), because it says that we should not go ahead with this increase in the own resources—the new structure reducing Britain's abatement by up to £10.5 billion—unless we get something in return.
	Unfortunately, as far as one can see, the Government's negotiating process so far has not got anything in return. Indeed, the negotiating position of the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has been rather like that scandalously sexist aphorism, "When a lady says never she means maybe, when she says maybe she means yes, and when she says yes she is not a lady."
	The former Prime Minister started off saying never:
	"The UK rebate will remain and we will not negotiate it away. Period."—[ Official Report, 8 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1234.]
	He then went on to say maybe:
	"Of course, if we get rid of the common agricultural policy and we change the reason why the rebate is there, the case for the rebate changes."—[ Official Report, 29 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 1293.]
	Finally, he conceded a reduction in the rebate completely, but he said that he was getting something in return—a reform of the agricultural policy, or at least a promise of a review of it.
	Accepting new clause 1 would enable us to see whether we have anything in return for the concessions made, and I cannot see how the Minister can possibly object to it. It proposes that the Treasury shall go ahead with implementing the new structure of own resources only if it can certify that we have secured a concession. It would be left to the Treasury's judgment whether it could honestly say that we had secured the concession—the review—that we were promised, and which Tony Blair told this Parliament he had been offered. The Treasury would be able to say whether it had been substantively achieved, so I invite the Minister to say that he will accept the new clause. If he cannot, will he say frankly and openly that he rejects it because he cannot envisage circumstances in which the Treasury will be able to say that the promises given to this House will be delivered? That would be an appalling position.
	The case for retaining our rebate persists. It was based on the fact that the structure of the British economy is such that when the same rules are applied to us as are applied to other member states they result in an unfair burden on us relative to the advantages that we get. Even after the changes that have occurred, and those planned in this settlement, are taken into account, this country will receive the lowest amount of European spending per head of any of the 27 countries in Europe. We will receive a quarter of that received by Ireland, whose gross domestic product per head, we are now told, is above ours, and we will receive half that received by France, whose figure was only marginally below ours before the recent exchange rate changes.
	Despite that, the contribution that we make is significantly greater than that of many other countries. The Government have been prepared to give us the figures only in respect of France, but the contribution per head that British people will make to the European budget is 20 per cent. greater than that of France. Our net contribution is set to rise significantly under this settlement, as I mentioned in an intervention that the Minister was kind enough to take. The net contribution is rising faster than the generality of public expenditure is planned to do in this country—so much so that our net contribution to the European budget as a share of total public expenditure will rise by half over the time span of the current spending process.
	This is a very inequitable arrangement as far as British people are concerned. It was right to secure an abatement to try to offset some two thirds of the differential between the money that we put in and the money that we get out. Mrs. Thatcher was able to secure it because she had a very good case, she argued forcefully and she persuaded her partners to give it to her. According to the Government, we now have to reduce that abatement and to accentuate again the inequities that the correction mechanism was designed to redress. "Correction" is the word used in the European documents. The correction is to an inequity that Britain otherwise faced.
	We will get nothing in return, because the CAP budget will continue to rise. According to House of Commons figures, the CAP budget remains 48 per cent. of the total expenditure of the EU. Others claim that it has risen from 40 per cent. a few years ago to 44 per cent. Lord Patten said a year or so ago:
	"We are talking about a budget for research and development that's been severely squeezed already in order to accommodate a continuing rise in agricultural spending that will actually go up from 40 to 44 per cent. of the overall community budget."
	So, far from our having secured some degree of reform already that is resulting in a reduction, it remains overwhelmingly a budget that goes on the CAP.
	The other part is spent on structural funds, and I want to ask the Chief Secretary whether the Government have made any progress in securing the reform that the present Prime Minister sought when he was still Chancellor. In 2003, he wrote in  The Times that
	"When the economic and social, as well as democratic, arguments on structural funds now and for the future so clearly favour subsidiarity in action, there is no better place to start than by bringing regional policy back to Britain."
	In a Government document entitled "A modern regional policy for the UK", the UK Government argued that member states with GDP per capita above 90 per cent. of the EU average should no longer receive structural funds money. Instead the money should be retained by them and spent by them, because, the Prime Minister has argued,
	"There are many things that we want to do to encourage local skills and research and development, and local businesses, but we're not able to do because of the existing rules."
	So when, under the new clause, the Government report back to the House on whether they have secured concessions, they can tell us whether they have secured the concession, at least for countries such as ours, on regional funds, so that we control that money and use it for British priorities, rather than sending it to Brussels and having it sent back by them, having incurred administrative costs and being earmarked for uses that would not necessarily be the priority of the British people and the British Government.
	The former Prime Minister made the concessions that are incorporated in the Bill. At the time, the then Chancellor was leaking to the press that he did not really support that. He thought that Tony Blair was being unduly weak and giving away too much. Now is his chance. He is now Prime Minister and this is the great vision that he has been seeking to put before the British people. He can do what he indicated in leaks that he wanted to do and give his Back Benchers a free vote on this Bill. They will then put him in a strong position to renegotiate and get the sort of deal that he wanted.
	I fear that we did not get that deal because the outgoing Prime Minister had other priorities. He was looking to his own future. He did not want to end with a big row in Europe. That might have been in Britain's interests, but it would not have been in his. He made a concession, which was a big contribution to his own future campaign to be President of Europe—an undeclared contribution, which dwarfs those of any member of the present Cabinet. I hope that that mistake, that unfortunate policy and that unfortunate weakness of the previous Prime Minister can be put right.
	The new clause would strengthen the position of the Government and the House, and I hope that it will be accepted.

Bernard Jenkin: I know that the right hon. Gentleman finds it hard to believe, but what has transformed the Irish economy, for example, is not the structural funding, but the much lower rates of taxation. It is possible, I concede, that the substantial subsidies that the Irish received in previous years allowed them to carry a much lower burden of taxation, but what is leading to the astonishing rates of growth in the eastern European countries is the liberalisation of their economies, the cutting away of bureaucratic interference from Government, and the lower rates of taxation. The fastest growing economies in eastern Europe are those with the most dynamic, enterprise-oriented tax systems. One of the things that is eroding our competitiveness is the inexorable rise of public expenditure and taxation, which will, as the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) described, leave Britain in the position of having failed to mend the roof while the sun was shining during the past 10 years.
	I have some relevant figures to hand. The Government inherited a national debt of £400 billion in 1996-97. That rose substantially in subsequent years, and by 2012-13—the year this financial perspective ends—we will have a public debt of £810 billion. That should be set alongside the situation in some European countries, which have no public debt at all because they have managed their economies very much more efficiently than we have.

Richard Shepherd: I am sorry; the hon. Gentleman is the former interim leader of the Liberal Democrats. He touched on what unites many of us in this House, strange as it may seem. I profoundly believe in the comity of nations. For the four most recent centuries of this country's history, it has been vitally engaged in what happens in Europe. Our prosperity as a mercantile nation depends on trade. All those things are true. Where we have common interests, surely we should work together for them.
	At the heart of this matter is the question of who governs. I am delighted to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his post, but goodness knows what has happened to the Treasury. Contrary to the environmental policies of the Government, he paraded a forest-full of notes, letters and papers. They were pushed across to him along the Benches to assist him in trying to define a very curious position.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has just said, this is about who bears taxes, how we negotiate and how we achieve the objectives of those who sent us here. What the Chief Secretary has tried to do in presenting this Bill represents an extraordinary distortion of facts that are on the record. We know what Mr. Blair negotiated and what promises and undertakings were given, as do the Liberal Democrats. This is not about Europe per se, in the sense of people being anti-Europe—that will come next week if we are to engage on a great issue. This is about now, and the Chief Secretary's characterisation of other hon. Members as having a distaff view—if I may put it like that—does no credit to the Government. Each one of us here accounts as best we can for the arguments that we support. We heard the poorest level of distillation, spin and obfuscation. He was confronted with rational arguments and, as often as not, he did not even understand them.
	The proposition put during a most distinguished contribution from the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), and put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) was a rational argument as to whether the proposal was negotiated worthily and in the British interest—the interest of the people whom we represent and of whom my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex was speaking—and whether we could have done better. The judgment of most independents standing to a side would be to say that this Government did not do at all well.
	In the end, we have to stand before our electorate and justify what we are doing. The tranches of money involved are huge, and we are entering a period of great uncertainty in the international situation. All of us know and recognise that, and we tremble in many instances. This Government have committed the taxpayers—the people whom we represent—to laying out sums of money, and they then come to dance in front of the House hoping that their spin will get them out of the situation. That they promised something else is neither here nor there, because they try to rewrite the story of what was promised.
	That is the deceit that we have had this evening. The Financial Secretary can keep waving. I take it as an indication that she and the Chief Secretary are drowning, in the terms of the poem. There is no poetry in this debate. It is a sad reflection of how destitute the Government are in the arguments that they now advance to try to show probity. We could get a better deal and the only amendment—
	  It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker  put  forthwith  the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Daniel Kawczynski: Indeed. When I was interviewed, I tried to raise the point with  The Birmingham Post and to say how concerned I was about the matter and that I would call a debate. In reply, the Minister said in the major Birmingham newspaper that he would welcome such a debate because he would want to highlight my shortcomings as an MP—[Hon. Members: "Short?"] The Minister said he would discuss my shortcomings as an MP and suggest that Shrewsbury would be better off represented by a Labour politician. Nobody feels more passionately about Shrewsbury than I do, and I will continue to fight for the people of Shrewsbury with all my heart and passion for as long as they allow me to do so. Having refused to see me for the past six months, what does the Minister for the West Midlands know of my shortcomings?
	I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of holding this debate, which has finally given me the chance to scrutinise the Minister. This is Parliament in action. A Member of Parliament cannot get hold of the Minister, who repeatedly refuses to reply to letters, phone calls and e-mails, so I am grateful to you for allowing me to highlight my concerns on the record.
	Because the Minister knew that the debate was to take place, by some strange, lucky co-incidence I finally managed to have a meeting with him yesterday—[Hon. Members: " Ah!"]—in the Pugin Room for half an hour over a cup of tea. [Hon. Members: " Who paid?"] I do not recall; I think that the Minister paid for the tea. As a result of that meeting, the Minister promised to come to Shrewsbury and meet all the Members of Parliament from Shropshire, as well as our county council and all the district councils in order to evaluate the priorities of Shropshire and to work closely with us. My hon. Friends will be displeased with what I am about to say. I found the Minister to be a charming man, clearly professional, highly educated, and one of those rare entities in the Labour party—somebody who has been in business. I was impressed with that, because he spoke as a business man, with that sense of professionalism. I was fuming before he arrived, but when he left after half an hour I was somewhat pacified and much more relaxed. I very much hope that he will fulfil his obligation—

Parmjit Dhanda: Part of the reason may be that although the focus of the points made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham was on the west midlands and his regional Minister, the title of his debate is about the role of regional Ministers. That is why I am here—to talk about the role across the board, and not just in respect of that specific regional Minister.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government have long been committed to strengthening regional and local institutions, in Shrewsbury and elsewhere—whether through our modernisation of local government so that it is better able to lead and provide key services for the communities that it serves, or through creating regional development agencies to improve regional economic performance and to ensure that every part of our country benefits from the sustained economic growth that we have seen in recent years. Regional Ministers are a further example of that commitment to devolution and decentralisation.
	The plan to have a Minister for each of the nine English regions was announced last June. The remit for each of my nine colleagues is to be both an advocate for the region and a representative of central Government in the region. That is an important new development in the Government's empowerment of the English regions, and a further recognition that not every decision can or should be taken within a mile of Westminster. Having regional Ministers complements the Government's approach to local freedoms and flexibilities set out in last year's local government White Paper. It is also in accord with the recommendations of the review of sub-national economic development. That will improve the effectiveness of regional governance and regional economic performance in particular. The hon. Gentleman will want me to get on to the issue of governance and accountability, not least to answer some of the questions raised in interventions; I shall try to get to that bit as quickly as I can.
	Regional Ministers are already contributing to the leadership of their regions and influencing Whitehall on their regions' behalf. In the west midlands, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) is doing an excellent job representing the region in Government and Government in the region. He is working closely with local government and other civic leaders to ensure that people in the region have access to good-quality jobs and affordable homes.
	I hear what the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said about Shropshire. I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend will be visiting, and that he met the hon. Gentleman for half an hour. I am sure that that will be the first of many meetings. My hon. Friend is providing leadership of the implementation of the sub-national review in the west midlands and has taken an active interest in the renewal of Birmingham New Street station—a project of regional and national importance, and one that is important to all of us.
	Similarly, in my own region and constituency the support and influence of the Minister for the South West, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) was a great help when we had flooding problems similar to those that the hon. Gentleman experienced. I am almost afraid to mention the word "flooding" tonight, because I fear that very many of my own constituents are concerned for their homes at the moment. The system has been a help around the country, where regional Ministers have been able to engage with such difficulties and to support local constituency Members of Parliament.
	Those are just two examples, but in every other region regional Ministers are helping to galvanise regional institutions and to improve the delivery of local public services. The appointment of regional Ministers as regional champions also creates a new opportunity to strengthen the regional voice within Government. They channel regional and local views into central Government policy development at the most senior levels.

Parmjit Dhanda: Indeed. I am coming to the issue of accountability to Parliament, which is the thrust of Members' questions, and rightly so.
	Last summer's floods and foot and mouth outbreaks are good examples of the role of regional Ministers' role out in the constituencies. Regional Ministers representing the worst affected regions were in close touch with the relevant Ministers and agencies to ensure a concerted, coherent response in the immediate aftermath. As well as individual representations, that work is co-ordinated through a regional Ministers network jointly chaired by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government—my Department—and for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
	The role of regional Ministers is described in the Green Paper "The Governance of Britain", published on 3 July. They will: be a visible presence in the region; provide leadership in relation to specific issues; promote national policies regionally; maintain close relationships with relevant regional stakeholders such as regional development agencies; promote achievement of the Government's regional economic performance objectives; and advise my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and for Communities and Local Government on the approval of regional strategies and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform on RDA board appointments.

Parmjit Dhanda: As the Member representing Gloucester, in a shire county, I can say that we have had a good response and good support from our regional Minister, and I believe that that is the case in the other regions as well.
	The Government have not sought to micro-manage the role of regional Ministers. It is for regional Ministers to decide how they can contribute most effectively to their region. I know that all regional Ministers have had an extensive series of visits and meetings with key players in their region, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's meeting yesterday will prove useful for him and for what happens in his county. My hon. Friend the Minister for the West Midlands has visited 14 constituencies since he was appointed. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the North East has visited 20 constituencies, and he finds time to be the deputy Chief Whip as well, so it important to mention him. Regional Ministers have used their knowledge, combined with their own substantial experience of their region, to develop their priorities and their own regional style.
	Parliamentary accountability of regional Ministers has been the subject of some speculation. In "The Governance of Britain" we make clear the Government's view that regional Ministers should be accountable through parliamentary questions and scrutiny by parliamentary Committee. In common with last year's Communities and Local Government Committee report on regional government, the Government believe that one means of achieving such scrutiny could be the establishment of nine regional select committees. Furthermore, in the sub-national review, we also made clear our support for greater parliamentary scrutiny of regional institutions and regional economic policy. That process too could be Committee-based, on either the Select Committee or the Standing Committee model. I would be interested to hear the views of the hon. Gentleman, and those of Members throughout the House, as to the best way of doing that.
	The Government have clear made their position on greater scrutiny of regional institutions. The exact details are now a matter for Parliament, and I hope that hon. Members who are genuinely interested in this debate will take the opportunity to articulate their views. I welcome the Modernisation Committee's announcement in October of its inquiry into regional accountability. The Government will be submitting their evidence in due course. I have no doubt that the Modernisation Committee will also consider whether there should be any changes to the current position on parliamentary questions put to regional Ministers, which are at present answered on their behalf by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, although such questions do go through a process of being seen by regional Ministers as well. I look forward to the Committee's inquiry—
	 The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.